Religious Terrorism
There seems to be a deep-seated need by some folks to cast Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as something — anything – other than a religious fanatic who killed in the name of his religion.
In spite of the ever-mounting information regarding his extremism, his self-declared status as a “Soldier of Allah”, his statements that he viewed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war on his religion… the arguments still continue.
“He was just like every other crazy that goes off the deep end and starts shooting people up”, they say. “It had nothing to do with his religion.”
It’s confounding.
Yes, Hasan is clearly “a crazy”. Sane people, as a matter of course, don’t commit mass murder, no matter the provocation. Yet to deny that Hasan’s “crazy” was not directly tied to his brand of Islam is the most bizarre form of denial to me.
It’s possible that all these people arguing that his religion was incidental to his crime are motivated by concern for the many millions of non-radical Muslims. If so, then I can at least understand the rationale (if not the denial). We should all be concerned about the possible tarring and denigration of others who do not ascribe to the extremists’ views, but share the religion nonetheless. Clearly those innocents are at risk, and it’s important to distinguish between this madman (and those who think like him), and the vast majority of Muslims who do not share these views.
But it is they who are incidental here, not Hasan’s religious views and related acts.
Trying to re-frame his many years of words and actions, which culminated in a despicable but logical end, is not doing ordinary Muslims any favors. Rather, it blurs the line between them — and frankly, that line should never be blurred. It’s crucial to distinguish them. Had this monster been a violent Christian extremist who’d been going off for years, and followed it up by shouting “Praise God” before shooting up a bunch of people, it would clearly have been connected to his twisted religious views.
And that would be different… how? Other than the religion under discussion, it wouldn’t be.
Friends, the murder of George Tiller was an act of terrorism. The bombings of his clinic, and the first shooting, were terrorism. Furthermore, I think they were precisely the same kind of terrorism: religious terrorism.
Religious terrorism is not exclusively the province of Islamic extremists, and it’s a blatant falsehood to claim that the terminology is not applied to fanatics following a different “path to enlightenment”. Or has everyone forgotten about the Army of God? The fact that the United States is currently at war with violent Muslim extremists certainly raises the profile of their crimes, but that’s about it.
Pretending that Hasan was not acting on his twisted interpretation of Islam does nothing to protect ordinary Muslims, anymore than pretending that Eric Rudolph wasn’t an extremist Christian protects ordinary, well-meaning Christians.
They’re terrorists — specifically, religious terrorists.
In this case, the religion is Islam, and Hasan’s version of it is heinous. He committed murder in the name of that religion.
It is what it is.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
83 Responses to “Religious Terrorism”
Okay, ThurmanHart. This is a line maybe we can travel a tad down, and uncover some things. (I like this so much better. You?)
I, too, oppose the hate crime legislation. And I see your point about further refining a crime of murder (clearly committed) as “terrorism” as moving into thought crime / hate crime territory…. IF I thought the application of the term was for the purpose of a different prosecution.
I haven't been thinking of Hasan, though, as needing some special prosecutorial attention. He's a traitor and a murderer. Me, I think the UCMJ is well-equipped to handle him (and I sure hope that's the venue).
Is this where the gap has been between us in debates?
This kind of relates to Sil's question earlier (though I wasn't sure whether this was what she meant). Calling Hasan's actions terroristic (like Scott Roeder's murder of George Tiller) doesn't (to me) mean a separate enhanced charge. We have laws in place already. The use of the term is to categorically distinguish such vicious creatures from those who do not — and would not — commit such crimes.
“Do you feel that there should be no difference in index of suspicion, and acts can only be dealt with in hindsight?”
Not at all – just as police investigations/activity can commence before the actual criminal act has occurred (as is the case, for example, when 'bait cars' or 'bait women' are used to catch cat thieves or those who seek prostitutes), certainly if the authorities catch wind of a potential terrorist attack they can and should investigate. However, we do need to be wary of creating such activites (a.k.a. “entrapment”), which to me appears to have happened on more than one occasion (e.g. the Ft Dix 'attack', the plan to bring down the Sears Tower, the plan to blow up the fuel depot at JFK.) Also, we have to be very careful not to give the government too much rope (e.g. “TIA” and other data-mining efforts), lest they start hanging folks who are in fact innocent.
~EdT.
Whether this was terrorism or “just” mass murder is a matter of definition and semantics. I am glad to see this thread drilling down into the semantic points and legal definitions. I'm not sure why it's important that this be termed “terrorism” and it's a pretty minor point to me. I surely don't want to see mass murder reduced to some kind of “lesser crime” if it isn't “terrorism.” That's my only objection to our seeming obsession with whether a crime is terrorism or not. Polimom, I'm curious if you consider the murder of Tiller to be “terrorism” since it and other such acts seem to be aimed at scaring workers at womens' health clinics. And they're also driven by religious extremism. Just curious. Murder is murder, in my book. It doesn't have to be “terrorism” or a “hate crime.”
“The use of the term is to categorically distinguish such vicious creatures from those who do not — and would not — commit such crimes.”
Which, IMO, leads us toward a slippery slope where we allow ourselves to see others as “vicious creatures” rather than as human beings (or even 'human beings who commit atrocities'.) This allows us to justify – nee, to rationalize – acts of equal (or equivalent) barbarity in response, acts which would under other circumstances we would find repulsive – even criminal.
~EdT.
I have no problem calling Hasan a traitor and I agree that the trial should be under UCMJ authority.
I honestly don't understand this point at all. After all, the term I have used – spree killer – doesn't exactly give someone a warm and fuzzy connotation. I would argue quite the contrary, that calling it terrorism actually gives the killer some cover for his/her actions whereas simply calling them a murderer pretty well captures the cold-bloodedness of the actions.
Anyone care to take a stab at defining the difference between garden variety terrorism and state terrorism?
Seems to me if you stir the pot past the bottom of it, past the creation of the term you still have the behavior. Was the Trojan horse a terrorist act? Is the Klu Klux Clan a terrorist organization? And what about our own revolutionary heroes………..were they terrorist by today's lexicon?
Thanks for pointing that out – it's a misquote taken from the wrong section (international terrorism).
Yes GreenDreams. I do see the murder of Tiller as terrorism.
“Friends, the murder of George Tiller was an act of terrorism. The bombings of his clinic, and the first shooting, were terrorism. Furthermore, I think they were precisely the same kind of terrorism: religious terrorism.”
I would argue quite the contrary, that calling it terrorism actually gives the killer some cover for his/her actions whereas simply calling them a murderer pretty well captures the cold-bloodedness of the actions.
Because these people (like Roeder, or Hasan, or Rudolph) have supporters out there in loony land — people who are behind their acts in the name of their religion. I want to distinguish between those people and the sane. I want to deliberately malign their type of thinking, and make it extremely clear that such garbage is neither welcome in, nor conducive to, our society.
Not unlike the branding of racists (a term which can also be misapplied), and for the same reason.
I would also argue that misapplying the term “racism” also sets back the attempts to combat actual racism. For example, all the furor over racism and President Obama. Not all hatred of Obama is based on racism. Labeling it as the same thing sets back attempts to actually combat racism.
I think labeling Hasan a cold-blooded killer, a spree killer, does distinguish him from the sane. I would also like to marginalize that sort of thinking, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to label it as “terrorism.” In a perverse way, it becomes a mark of pride for them. I think it is much more helpful to engage the line of thinking and expose the flaws of that ideology.
With regards to militant Islam, there is a long and ongoing debate among Islamic scholars who believe violence is only justifiable when it is in active defense of the innocent and those who believe it is justifiable in a pro-active manner against those who disagree with Islam. To label the latter as terrorism can be correct at times, but it moves the debate into a political arena instead of the ethical/religious arena. Thus, our efforts to marginalize militant Islam becomes a “war on Islam” instead of an embrace of those forms of Islam that would live in peace alongside us.
In other words, misusing the term plays right into their hands. It feeds the rampant paranoia that exists in militants of all stripes.
By the way, I want to be clear that, while I disagree with you, I do believe the only real issue is that we are both passionate about this issue and want what is best for everyone involved. We simply disagree about how to achieve that, and, in some respects, what would actually be best for everyone.
In all the arguing, you've actually helped me find better ways to argue what I am trying to say. I appreciate your efforts, and respect them. I honestly believe that better solutions are found when we engage each other than when we fail to do so.
In short, thanks for giving a damn. This is an important issue.
“Yes, women can be venal, evil and destructive. But we don't tend to go around trying to kill complete strangers to prove a point. The weaker sex, indeed!”
Ah yes. %0.00000001 percent of men are mass murders, compared to %0.000000001 of women. Indisputable proof that men are the weaker sex.
In general I agree with you Polimon. But I think politics is probably driving the dispute over this. On the one hand, if it is “terrorism” then the right will likely use it to show that Obama is weak, since Bush kept us safe for 7 years and then the worst terrorist act since 9/11 on american soil happened on Obama's watch. On the other side, if it's just some crazy who didn't want to go to war, then Democrats will use it to show how the Bush administration policies have driven our troops to the edge. Both arguments are bogus, but can be used to bolster the base. It's no wonder, then, that both sides are pushing on this issue.
Personally, I don't think the label is that important (other than the political implication as described above). Clearly he was crazy, and clearly both his opposition to the war, as well as his particular extreme religious beliefs (not the Muslim religious beliefs, but a distortion of them), contributed to that craziness. Whether that is “terrorism” or not depends on whether terrorism implies an organization behind the act or not, but that's just a semantic debate.
(I haven't read all of the previous 60 comments yet, so I apologize if I repeated a point that was already made)
if the authorities catch wind of a potential terrorist attack they can and should investigate
Right, but the whole point of the provisions in the Patriot Act is that there would often be no way to 'catch wind' until its too late, unless some intel was permitted to be gathered in ways that would not meet the tests of traditional law enforcement models which protect civil rights and political speech.
Again, I'm not advocating one way or the other as I am still conflicted about where the lines should be drawn, but I think people on both extremes of the debate are ignoring some of the real problems that need to be addressed. If people with a keen sense of the importance of civil liberty would acknowledge the problem aspect, they would be able to engage with potential solutions that don't overreach. By acting as though nothing needs to be changed at all, you give license to the majority of people who will tend to trade liberties for security.
Nidal Hasan is a “self styled” terrorist.
He seemed to have been perfectly happy as an Army officer psychiatrist, with his Army paid for free medical degree, as long as he didn't actually have to go to war. It’s not like any psychiatrist would have to kill any Muslims anyway, but gee he might have to actually sacrifice for his service, not just “be employed” with an excellent retirement package after twenty years. Then a lucrative private practice?
No this is a selfish, self centered jackass whom has never thought of anyone but himself.
That’s my assessment.
Yes Polimom, I am asking how should we as a nation handle the “christian” jihadist abortion-doctor killers and clinic bombers? If we are to be fair, we should invade their places of worship with the National Guard and break up their regime, incarcerate and torture them until we have all their members in custody.
Perhaps we should set up a special internment camp to hold them indefinitely without formally charging them while the torture is going on? Maybe if Congress doesn't leap to this notion right away we could set up a situation that will make these domestic jihadists look utterly like a threat, you know or just lie to Congress to get their approval for 'our' war against them?
This is a country of equality and if we have a group of religious fundamentalists overtly declaring lethal ambitions towards a group of american citizens, especially within the boundaries of the continental US, I'd say they'd take priority over any other group of jihadists. Wouldn't you say? Or are the lives of just a few women's health empolyees not really worth all the fuss? What number would it take to make a fuss? Something like 5,000 of them +/- [like the World Trade Center fatalities] before we take the threat seriously?
Let's be fair. Jihadists are religious extremists who openly declare the promise of lethal force to impose their religious beliefs on others. “Christians” are not exempt from the jihad label.
Except for perhaps discovering, punishing and eliminatiing any links this murderer may have had; except for learning everything we can about why and how this crime happened, in order to prevent reoccurences; and except for ensuring that this criminal meets justice here and meets his maker later on, I really don't care what anyone calls him or his crime.
Great article. We won't solve/mitigate this current problem, unless we address this salient point (religious factor in terrorism(. As you note, we don't go there as a) we don't want to hurt people's feelings (hence, sadly, we'll have more deaths — with all irredeemable feelings contained therein…); and b) it involves a large uncomfortable paradigm shift, when we apply the same issue/scrutiny to ourselves and our own society. Hence, I don't see this problem being solved anytime too soon. Meanwhile, with rising birth rates, a large youth bulge and dwindling economic opportunities over large portions of the third world (significantly, in this case, in the Muslim-majority countries), the conditions for mobilizing religious-extremist sentiment off the street will only increase. Domestically, in our relatively comfortable democratic societies, large, uncomfortable paradigm shifts are unlikely to happen quickly without a dynamic catalyst. Without further dialogue in this area, we are losing a race against time. I would rather see us all leaving our comfort zones with logic and discussion, than in a panic with our hair on fire. Thanks for the article
I really don't care what anyone calls him or his crime.
That sums up my viewpoint. Those that were killed by this guy probably wouldn't. Son of Sam heard voices, the guys that shot the Pope, JFK, RFK , Lincoln are all just killers, albeit motivated ones.
First, I will confess to not reading the 60+ comment stream, only Polimom's original post and the first few, so sorry if my comment is a duplicate.
Second, I don't see why it is important to attach the label “terrorism” to this or that. What is important is how to prevent the murder of American soldiers in the future. Yes, the man seems to have twisted his religion into a reason to kill. As such, we should watch for this in whatever way we can. Even more relevantly, there appear to have been concerns about this man for quite a long time, and we need to act on those concerns. If you fix that, you will go a lot further to stopping such violence than whether or not warped Islam was important in this particular case. Next time, it could be warped liberalism or warped libertarianism or whatever.
Third, I do see irony in the following: In mass murder cases using guns, many people are inclined to NOT blame the availability of guns, but put the responsibility entirely upon the man committing the act. Guns don't kill people, people do. Many of those same people now want to blame a religion instead of keeping responsibility on the person. Apparently, people don't kill people, Islam does. Naturally, the same irony goes on the other side.
Ooooh, ooh, oooh. The base rate fallacy!
Excellent comments, pacatrue
Dorian
I think it's a salient point to make. Don't get your panties in a twist.
(panties fully untwisted)
The question of why these sorts of crimes are perpetrated by males more frequently than females is interesting. Concluding that it means that women are superior to men is ridiculous. I realize that you probably weren't being entirely serious, but neither was I (or I would have made sure to find real statistics instead of making them up).
The issue is dogmatism in all forms, in any religion. I do believe that there are certain tenants that probably 99% (you like my statistics, adelinesdad?) of us can agree on: be kind, don't cheat, love each other, care for your neighbors, raise respectful kids, etc.
The problem comes in when individuals and institutions demonize other human beings over the 1% of fundamental disagreements that simply have no solution. At some point, you either have to let it go, or go postal on complete strangers because your own belief system is so threatened by the autonomy of other people.
Religion, specifically conservative religions that seek to turn back the clock on social change, tends to attract these dogmatic personalities and feed into some twisted mental processes, egged on by, yes, testosterone. Witness the modern day Republican party.
Now, obviously most religious conservatives don't go out and kill people, but neither Islam nor Christianity has a lock on psycho killers. The religious aspect of this puzzle is very important, but so is ethnic identity, a sense of alienation from society as a whole, social and sexual isolation and probably despair over the stories of combat veterans that he was subjected to as a psychiatrist.
Let me clear: I have absolutely NO sympathy for the perpetrator of these murders. If anyone deserves the death penalty, it is probably him. But it's important to understand the ingredients that went into the cauldron of this man's psyche so that we can at least try to stop it from happening again.
From what I've heard, the man choose his religion after he started having problems. Would this be a different crime if he has chosen atheism?
I agree, VeratheGun, your shot at the Republicans party notwithstanding. I don't think the debate over whether this is “terrorism” or not is relevant except for politically and semantically. If we're truly interested in understanding what happened and preventing it from happening again, the “terrorism” debate is a distraction.
“From what I've heard, the man choose his religion after he started having problems. Would this be a different crime if he has chosen atheism?”~ProfElwood
*********
Or if he had chosen christianity? Then for sure it would've been a “different” crime.
Really? I'm under the impression he was raised Muslim. Second generation Jordanian Arab, first generation American Arab.
I am seriously interested in the facts as they become more available. You see, for me, this event is inexcusable, unforgivable, and, unprecedented. This man is not just a criminal terrorist, he is a FIELD GRADE OFFICER AND A TRAITOR!
I am livid.
“The question of why these sorts of crimes are perpetrated by males more frequently than females is interesting.”
Back in the early 1990s, I remember being amused by a book that addressed this.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Are-Not-Cost-Effectiv…
This video is also of interest in understanding why young males tend to be more violent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpImeYCZKBk&feat…
The majority of violent crimes have always been committed by males. I remember reading an analysis from my wife's criminal justice classes over a decade ago.
Right, it all traces back to religion. So why are Atheists history's biggest dealers in genocide?